[부정수표단속법위반등피고사건][하집1984(3),432]
Whether a check is a check under the Illegal Check Control Act, which is written in the month of issuance and a day without entry in the issuing year.
A check which is issued with only the month of issuance and a day without the entry of the year of issue shall not, in the end, be called as a check under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, which does not indicate the issue date, which is the requirement of the check under Article 1 of the Check Act.
Article 1 of the Check Act, Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act
Defendant
Defendant and Prosecutor
Seoul Criminal District Court (83 High Court Decision 3660, 84 High Court Decision 918 Consolidation)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
The 110-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.
Of the facts charged in this case, it is not guilty of violating the Illegal Check Control Act regarding the check number d. 0029131 amount 1,100,000 won per unit.
The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: first, since the defendant was unaware of the fact that the sales contract of the store in the name of the non-indicted 2, which offered the security against the borrowed money to the non-indicted 1 was forged at the time of original adjudication, the court below erred in the judgment by falsely recognizing the fact that the defendant committed the crime of fraud in the above judgment, second, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and the summary of the prosecutor's appeal is unreasonable. Therefore, if the first point of the defendant's appeal is sufficient to recognize the crime in the original adjudication, compared with the records of the evidence duly examined by the court below, it is sufficient to find the crime in the second case of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to deem that the court below misleads the fact-finding. Thus, this part of the appeal by the defendant is groundless.
Then, prior to the judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the first prosecutor did not enter the first instance court's 3-Ga at the time of original adjudication, and the second instance court's judgment on the premise of the change since it changed part of the facts charged. Second, the first instance court's judgment on the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act as to the first issue number No. 1 at the time of original adjudication (No. 400,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to the provisions of Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act before the judgment on the issue of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor, and the members of the company
The summary of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below as to the facts constituting the crime acknowledged as a member of the company, and the summary of the evidence thereof, are as shown in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, including the issuance of one sheet of 1,100,000 won per unit value at the location of the Seoul Trust Bank (Seoul Trust Bank) on October 5, 1981, and the issuance of one sheet of 12,288,000 won per unit value as shown in the attached sheet, as shown in paragraph (3) of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, since the majority opinion of 24,288,00 won per unit value per unit value is as shown in the attached sheet, and the issuance of one sheet of 1,700,000 won per unit value per unit value at the location of the Seoul Trust Bank (Seoul Trust Bank), and the "1983" in each of the facts charged in paragraph (3) is modified to "1982," and it is cited by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Article 2(2) and (1) of the Illegal Check Control Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 231, Article 234, the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act, Article 50 (Concurrent Crimes for Crimes of Article 2 of the Judgment most severe in Punishment and Criminal Affairs), Article 57 of the Criminal Act
Of the facts charged in this case, the fact that the Defendant issued a check number of KRW 1,100,00 at the face value of KRW 1,100,000 from July 15, 1981 to October 5, 1981 and did not receive the check number of KRW 1,10,000 at the face value of October 5, 1981 and the check number of KRW 1,10,000 from that of Seoul Trust Bank and issued a check under the name of the Defendant from that of the Seoul Trust Bank branch and the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not receive the check for reasons such as free trade, etc. on the 6th of the same month constitutes a case where there is no proof of the crime, and thus, the Defendant is acquitted
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Judges Eiopi (Presiding Judge) Eiopi Jin